Changes

From his doctoral dissertation in 1932 on,<ref>{{1932}}</ref> one of the central quests which animates [[Lacan]]'s work is that of identifying a specific psychical cause for [[psychosis]].  In the course of addressing this problem, two themes are constant.

As early as 1938 [[Lacan]] relates the origin of [[psychosis]] to an exclusion of the [[father]] from the [[family]] [[structure]], with the consequent reduction of the latter to [[mother]]-[[child]] [[dual|relation]]s.<ref>{{1938}} p. 49</ref>  Later on in his [[Works of Jacques Lacan|work]], when [[Lacan]] distinguishes between the [[real]], [[imaginary]] and [[symbolic]] [[father]], he specifies that it is the [[absence]] of the [[symbolic]] [[father]] which is linked to [[psychosis]].

[[Freud]] uses the term ''[[foreclosure|Verwerfung]]''<ref>Translated as "[[foreclosure|repudiation]]" in the [[Standard Edition]]</ref> in a number of disparate ways, but [[Lacan]] focuses on one in particular: namely, the sense of a specific [[defence mechanism]] which is distinct from [[repression]] (''[[repression|Verdrängung]]''), in which "the ego rejects the incompatible idea together with its affect and behaves as if the idea had never occurred to the ego at all."<ref>{{F}} "[[Work of Sigmund Freud|The Neuro-Psychoses of Defence]]", 1894a: [[SE]] III, 58</ref>   In 1954, basing himself on a reading of the "[[Wolf Man]]" case history,<ref>{{F}} "[[Work of Sigmund Freud|From the History of an Infantile Neurosis]]," 1918b: [[SE]] XVII, 79-80</ref> [[Lacan]] identifies ''[[foreclosure|Verwerfung]]'' as the specific mechanism of [[psychosis]], in which an element is rejected outside the [[symbolic order]] just as if it had never [[existence|existed]].<ref>{{Ec}} p. 386-7; {{S1}} p. 57-9</ref>  At this time [[Lacan]] proposes various ways of translating the term ''[[Foreclosure|Verwerfung]]'' into [[French]], rendering it as ''rejet'', ''refus'' and ''retranchement''.<ref>{{S1}} p. 43; {{Ec}} p.386</ref>  It is not until 1956 that [[Lacan]] proposes the term ''[[foreclosure|forclusion]]'' (a term in use in the French legal system; in [[English]], "[[foreclosure]]") as the best way of translating ''[[foreclosure|Verwerfung]]'' into [[French]].<ref>{{S3}} p. 321</ref>

At this time [[Lacan]] proposes various ways of translating the term ''[[Foreclosure|Verwerfung]]'' into [[French]], rendering it as ''rejet'', ''refus'' and ''retranchement''.<ref>{{S1}} p. 43; {{Ec}} p. 386</ref> It is not until 1956 that [[Lacan]] proposes the term ''[[foreclosure|forclusion]]'' (a term in use in the French legal system; in [[English]], "[[foreclosure]]") as the best way of translating ''[[foreclosure|Verwerfung]]'' into [[French]].<ref>{{S3}} p. 321</ref> It is this term that [[Lacan]] continues to use for the rest of his work.

In 1954, when [[Lacan]] first turns to the [[Freud]]ian concept of ''[[foreclosure|Verwerfung]]'' in his search for a specific [[defence|mechanism]] for [[psychosis]], it is not clear exactly what is repudiated; it can be [[castration]] that is repudiated, or [[speech]] itself, or "the genital plane".<ref>{{S1}} p. 53, 58</ref>   [[Lacan]] finds a solution to the problem at the end of 1957, when he proposes the idea that it is the [[Name-of-the-Father]] -- a [[fundamental signifier]] -- that is the [[object]] of [[foreclosure]].<ref>{{E}} p. 217</ref> In this way [[Lacan]] is able to combine in one formula both of the themes that had previously dominated his thinking on the [[causality]] of [[psychosis]] -- the [[absence]] of the [[father]] and the concept of ''[[foreclosure|Verwerfung]]''.  This formula remains at the heart of [[Lacan]]'s thinking on [[psychosis]] throughout the rest of his [[Work of Jacques Lacan|work]].

When the [[Name-of-the-Father]] is [[foreclosed]] for a particular [[subject]], it leaves a hole in the [[symbolic order]] which can never be filled; the [[subject]] can then be said to have a [[psychotic]] [[structure]], even if he shows none of the classical [[sign]]s of [[psychosis]].  Sooner or later, when the foreclosed [[Name-of-the-Father]] reappears in the [[real]], the [[subject]] is unable to assimilate it, and the result of this "collision with the inassimilable signifier" is the "entry into psychosis" proper, characterised typically by the onset of [[hallucinations]] and/or [[delusions]].<ref>{{S3}} p. 321</ref>

[[Foreclosure]] is to be distinguished from other operations such as [[repression]], [[negation]], and [[projection]]. [[Foreclosure]] differs from [[repression]] in that the [[foreclosed]] [[signifier|element]] is not buried in the [[unconscious]] but expelled from the [[unconscious]].  [[Repression]] is the operation which constitutes [[neurosis]], whereas [[foreclosure]] is the operation which constitutes [[psychosis]].